Berger's statements at the end of the article regarding the reproduction of art have left me with mixed feelings. He asserts that reproductions take away the authority of art, and that it can no longer exist in the way that it did in the past. I do think that art has been completely changed forever because of it's accessibility, which has led to famous work being reinterpreted and reinvented, often for the purpose of humor (warning: this does have some profanity). I am sure this is the kind of thing that would horrify Berger, but I think the reproduction and reinterpretation of art is an amazing thing. Art has become so accessible for the masses, and everyone can find an appreciation for it in their own way.
Berger also noted that the invention of the camera was one of the major things that forever changed the way art was viewed. Before, people would need to travel to the place that a painting was located to see it. This kept the painting in its original context, allowing the viewer see it as it was meant to be seen. There is some truth to the fact that something is lost when the original context is removed. The ceiling of Sistine Chapel may still bear religious imagery, but taking it out of a religious setting can totally change the way the viewer looks at it, forcing them to incorporate more of their personal experiences into their interpretation.